This WEB
site contains online, readable versions of the Harper's Weekly
newspapers published during the Civil War. These old newspapers allow
you to develop a unique understanding of the important events of the
Civil War. This site is created to help you in your studies and your
research. Check back often, as we add new material each day.

(Scroll Down to see entire page, or Newspaper Thumbnails will take you to the page of interest.)

UNION REFUGEES IN MISSOURI.

THE illustration on the
preceding page—which
represents Union fugitives in St. Louis—shows how cruelly the rebellion is
pressing upon the loyal people of Missouri. The Herald correspondent writes from
St. Louis :

For some days past the
unfortunate sufferers of the southwest portion of the State, who have been
driven out on account of their Union sentiments, have lined our thoroughfares,
and presented many of the most painful scenes of poverty and affliction ever
witnessed in this city. Only a small portion arrived in proportion to the
thousands who left
Springfield and vicinity in company with
General Siegel's division. Their
appearance—half naked, benumbed with cold, and hardly able to stand—has excited
the liveliest sympathy, and it is evident that something must be done for these
destitute people, or they will die outright of starvation. Yesterday
General Halleck issued an order on the subject,
which has struck consternation into the hearts of the secessionists, and at the
same time provides an effective remedy. It is as follows :

The law of military retaliation
has fixed and well-established rules. While it allows no cruel or barbarous acts
on our part in retaliation for like acts of the enemy, it permits any
retaliatory measures within the prescribed limits of military usage. If the
enemy murders and robs Union men we are not justified in murdering and robbing
other persons who are in a legal sense, enemies to our Government, but we may
enforce on them the severest penalties justified by the laws of war for the
crimes of their fellow-rebels. The rebel forces in the southwestern counties of
this State have robbed and plundered the peaceful non-combatant inhabitants,
taking from them their clothing and means of subsistence. Men, women, and
children have alike been stripped and plundered. Thousands of such persons are
finding their way to this city barefooted, half clad, and in a destitute and
starving condition. Humanity and justice require that these sufferings should be
relieved, and that the outrages committed upon them should be retaliated upon
the enemy. The individuals who have directly caused these sufferings are at
present beyond our reach; but there are in this city, and in other places within
our lines, numerous wealthy secessionists who render aid, assistance, and
encouragement to those who commit these outrages. They do not themselves rob and
plunder, but they abet and countenance these acts in others. Although less bold,
they are equally guilty. It is therefore ordered and directed that the Provost
Marshals immediately inquire into the condition of the persons so driven from
their homes, and that measures be taken to quarter them in the houses and to
feed and clothe them at the expense of avowed secessionists, and of those who
are found guilty of giving aid, assistance, and encouragement to the enemy.

The Tribune correspondent says:

Truly enough, for at this hour
thousands of refugees are fleeing from Missouri that they may find bread, and
afterward a home in our happy Free State. Scantily clad, half famished, and
pinched with cold, they enter our border towns and beg, for they have no money,
that they may live. Nor are these the ignorant poor—it is the better class in
the
Slave States who are faithful to the Union.
Whole families and whole neighborhoods have come, and the roads leading to St.
Louis and the city itself are filled with them. Far to the rear come the various
divisions of
Price's army, and when they overtake the
helpless exiles they rob them of every thing. From the men they take even their
pocket-knives.

TO ADVERTISERS.

THE great exertions made by the
proprietors of
HARPER'S WEEKLY to illustrate the WAR have been rewarded by a large
increase of circulation. During the year which ends with this Number Over FIVE
HUNDRED ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE WAR have been published in HARPER'S WEEKLY. It now
circulates ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND COPIES WEEKLY; which is, we believe,
the largest circulation of any Journal in this country in which Advertisements
are published. Price 50 and 75 cents per line.

TO SUBSCRIBERS.

A HANDSOME Title-page to the
FIFTH VOLUME, of which this is the concluding Number, together with a Complete
Index of Contents, has been printed on a separate sheet, and may be had
gratuitously of all Agents or at the Office of Publication.

Muslin Covers may also be had, by
all who wish their Numbers for the year bound in a volume, at FIFTY CENTS each.
Twenty-five per cent. discount allowed to the trade.

HARPER'S WEEKLY.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1861.

JOHN BULL ON THE RAMPAGE.

THE British newspapers reach us
full of fury and menace against this country. Our " little fleet is to be swept
from the seas ;" "the San Jacintos" are to be "sunk or captured;" our blockade
is to be broken at once ; the "Southern Confederacy" is to be "acknowledged by
Great Britain and France simultaneously ;" our " Northern ports are to be
blockaded ;" " twelve Royal
men-of-war" are to sail up
the Potomac, and compel
the return of
Mason and Slidell in view of the White House; the Warrior is to be
anchored off
Annapolis, with shotted guns ; we are to be taught the folly and
danger of "insulting the British flag." All this, and much more, we are to
suffer, according to those British journalists, because
Captain Wilkes, instead
of making the Trent a prize, and carrying her into an American port for
adjudication, generously allowed her and her passengers to proceed on their
voyage unmolested. The law officers of the British Crown admit that the Trent
was liable to seizure, and

her passengers to detention and
annoyance ; but with a refinement worthy of nisi prius pleaders, they pretend
that it was unjustifiable to inflict upon her any minor indignity. In their
opinion the greater does not contain the less. We must either exact the whole of
our rights or none of them. If we will be forbearing we must be punished. " D'ye
mean to insult me, you beggar!" asked the drunken sailor of a gentleman whom he
was molesting, " that you don't strike back?"

Well, if it must be so, so mote
it be. If England is bent upon seizing this our hour of trouble to force a war
upon us for the destruction of the Union, we must accept the decree manfully. We
are already engaged in a war of such magnitude that our outlay of money and men
would not be greatly increased if we had to contend against England
simultaneously with the South. Telegraphs and steam protect us against any
landing of foreign troops on our soil ; vigorous exertions will soon provide us
with a fleet of war vessels and privateers which will render it much more
difficult than
John Bull imagines either to raise our Southern blockade, or to
blockade our Northern ports, or to protect British commerce on the ocean. It was
the combination of all the European Powers against French democracy, at the
close of the last century, which developed the strength of the French nation to
such a pitch that in less than ten years it ruled the whole European continent ;
a similar combination against democracy in America would rouse our people to a
pitch of energy and self-sacrificing patriotism that would be much more likely
to shake European thrones than American institutions.

But is it not sad to see how
unwisely the energies of a great free nation like England are being directed? If
there was a principle to which Englishmen of our day have clung with more
tenacity than any other, it was that under the meteor flag of England slavery
could not exist, and that when a slave's foot pressed British soil that instant
he became a free man. This has been the boast, the worthy boast of Englishmen
for more than a generation. Yet when the institution of
slavery—conscious of
impending ruin—reared itself in its wickedness, and struggled mightily to
overthrow a nation bound to England by every tie of blood, language, religion,
commerce, treaties, institutions, and a common freedom, England, instead of
standing true to her traditions, her honor, and even her most palpable interest,
at once bestowed her sympathies upon the institution she had denounced for forty
years, and shamelessly and openly rejoiced and assisted at the prospect of our
overthrow. What can be the ultimate fruit of such a policy ? What would be the
position of Great Britain in the event of success—the protector of a nation
"based on the corner-stone of human slavery ?" What historian will hereafter
venture to vindicate England's indecent haste to place the rebels on a par with
ourselves by royal proclamation; the persistent hostility of her press and many
of her leading men; the vulgar falsehoods by which her leaders have deluded her
people as to the nature of our contest; the reception in her ports of the
pirate
steamers Nashville and Sumter, laden with the spoil of our vessels; and now,
lastly, the attempt to bully us in the hour of our greatest extremity ? Do not
envy the task of the future Macaulay, to whose lot it shall fall to paint this
page of British story, and to justify to the minds of another—and, let us hope,
a better—race of Englishmen the insidious and persevering efforts of their
fathers to carry out, in this country, the policy Great Britain has pursued with
uniformity in China and in India, to ruin a friendly nation in order to
discredit republican institutions, and to keep four million human creatures in
slavery in order that "Lancashire may get cotton, and a market with eight
millions of buyers may be secured for British goods."

IT matters little, in effect,
whether the burning of the city of Charleston
was the fruit of accident or of
negro incendiarism. The rebels are sure to ascribe the disaster to the latter
cause. Secret terrors are the price of despotism : in slave countries, every
noise, every cry, every unusual movement of a slave, carries apprehension to the
heart of his master. At the time of the John Brown affair, Governor Wise told us
that Virginia matrons living miles and miles away were beside themselves with
terror. We know that so terrible was the alarm created by that trumpery attempt,
that down on the Gulf shore negroes whose behavior had attracted attention were
imprisoned, whipped, and even shot by scores. In the language of Southern
members of Congress who talked secession in those days, life was not worth
having, if accompanied by the agonies which such events implanted in every
Southern breast.

It is by the light of these
memories that we must read the tale of the burning of Charleston. The burning of
600 houses, including every public building in the city, and property valued at
$7,000,000, is an astounding event. Whatever the politicians and the papers may
say, the Southern people from
Norfolk to
Galveston are sure to conclude that the
negroes did

the dread deed, and each man and
woman is now quaking in terror lest his or her house should be the next to go.
Nor is this opinion likely to be confined to the whites. The slaves, too, will
hear of the fire, and will hear simultaneously—for we know that news does spread
among the slaves, hard as their masters try to keep them in ignorance—that
between eight and ten thousand slaves, till lately the overworked laborers on
Carolina cotton plantations, are now free men, getting eight and ten dollars a
month. It will not exceed the negro's power of combination to connect the two
events together. When he does, beware the result.

We are gradually spreading the
net which is to encircle the rebellion. The occupation of Ship Island,
Mississippi, by the advance-guard of
General Butler's expedition, under General
Phelps, is of course the first step toward a movement upon
Mobile and
New
Orleans. The terrors which have compelled
General Lee to imprison men at
Savannah and Charleston to prevent their flying to the mountains, will now be
transferred to the Gulf cities, and if we hear of more fires no one must be
surprised. The assassin's dagger and the incendiary torch are the natural
weapons of the slave. We should not use them, but we did not make the present
situation.

In a few days, probably before
the next number of this journal is printed, a fresh blow at the rebellion will
be struck by
General Burnside at the head of some fifteen thousand men, and very
possibly General Halleck may have commenced operations on the Cumberland and
Tennessee rivers. The burning of Charleston will prove a more potent ally to
these generals than an additional fleet or army. It may have been, as we said, a
mere accident, assisted by a high wind. But wherever our troops advance, fathers
and mothers will bethink themselves with a shudder that within a month after the
landing of our forces on the soil of South Carolina the chief city of that State
was mysteriously burned, and thousands of people rendered houseless on a
December night. The offspring of these thoughts will be surrender.

THE LOUNGER.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S DISPATCHES.

THE calmness, clearness, and
ability of
Mr. Seward's instructions to our foreign Ministers show how well he
understands the emergency. The skillful difference in tone and representation of
the same general subject to different. Powers, shows his diplomatic genius
accomplishment. In his instructions to
Mr. Adams, in England, he says, "You will
not consent to draw into debate before the British Government any opposing moral
principles which may be supposed to be at the foundation of the controversy
between those States and the Federal Union." To Mr. Clay, in Russia, he says,
"Its object [the rebellion] is to create a nation built upon the principle that
African slavery is necessary, just, wise, and beneficent, and that it may and
must be expanded over the central portion of the American continent and islands,
without check or resistance, at whatever cost and sacrifice to the welfare and
happiness of the human race." To Mr. Schurz, in Spain, he states, with cold
sarcasm, the essential absurdity and impracticability of the political system of
the Confederate States, which
Mr. Lincoln truly and roughly characterized, in
one of his speeches on his way to Washington, as free love in politics ; and he
impresses upon Spain that the faction which is now insurgent is the same faction
that has until recently controlled the Government of the country—including, of
course, its foreign relations and the Ostend filibustering policy, of which the
late President was one of the fathers.

These questions are handled with
such gravity and comprehension that the question inevitably arises, Why has the
Secretary of State forfeited so much public confidence at home since the
rebellion commenced? That he has done so is beyond question. That his warm
friends have been disappointed is undeniable. And if the reason be sought
closely, is it not that he has failed to show that deep and earnest conviction
of the threatening scope of the conspiracy which he so plainly discovers in his
correspondence with our Ministers?

The particular indications of
this want are not very easy to specify. It is probably felt in the light tone in
which the Secretary has spoken in public of the rebellion as a whim, a gust, a
hallucination. " Sire, it is a revolution," has been the instinctive response of
those who have heard or read his words.

Then the more eager and impetuous
of his friends have thought the President too slow, too much without a policy ;
and have held the Secretary of State responsible. Moreover, in the early days,
when the necessity and the ability of action were so sadly disproportioned, the
Secretary's optimism was held to be the drag upon the wheels of Government. That
this opinion was just there is no sufficient proof. But it was very general
among ardent men.

The correspondence now published
will vindicate Mr. Seward's clear comprehension of the character of the
rebellion. The key-note of his policy is doubtless to be found in his profound
conviction of the necessity of the Union and the adequacy of the Government,
under the Constitution, to secure all reforms. And the question between him and
his more vehement associates can probably be expressed in the President's words,
that " we should not be in haste to determine that radical and extreme measures,
which may reach the loyal as well as the disloyal, are indispensable."

PATIENCE.

PEOPLE, it is said, are getting
impatient. There ought to be a forward movement. Something ought to be done.
Secretary Cameron says that we have six hundred thousand men in the field. What
are they doing ? Forward! Forward!

Yes; we have heard that before.
Nothing is more natural than impatience. Let us go right in and win. But let us
also—in conducting a great war, in which we had every preparation to make—let us
have common-sense. There is one man who knows when we ought to move upon the
Potomac. That is
General McClellan. If he be an able soldier, he will know when
that time arrives. If he be loyal, he will move when the time comes. And we can
meanwhile wait in confidence, or we can fret over the delay.

Every thing depends upon our
faith in our leader. Congress certainly can not tell whether there should be a
movement. Newspapers in New York and elsewhere have no better opportunities for
knowing than the General. And newspaper correspondents in Washington have had
their military day. War can be conducted only upon the principles of war. There
is an army of probably it hundred and fifty thousand desperate men, ably
officered, strongly intrenched, beyond the Potomac. Properly to engage them
requires a knowledge of circumstances, of our own forces and their capacity, and
of military science, which most of us who quietly write about the matter do not
possess. If General McClellan is equally ignorant, we are in a very bad way.

If any body doubts our leader's
loyalty, let him say so. If any body doubts his ability, let him say that. But
if, as no one has yet dreamed of denying, General McClellan is loyal, and if he
be the soldier that every body believes, it is not fair to him, to the cause, or
to our friends in the field, to aid in creating a public sentiment that may cry
havoc, and let slip the dogs of war to their sure destruction.

That General McClellan has done
any of the foolish things that are reported of him there seems to be no reason
to believe ; and if in any way he differs from any officer of the Government
upon the policy of conducting the war, we may be very sure that he differs as an
honest man should, fairly and frankly. The slaughter at Bull Run was the first
offering to an impatient and unjust public opinion; the disgrace of General
Fremont was the second; does it mean to require the sacrifice of General
M'Clellan as the third?

ALIENATION AND DISTRACTION.

THE Union Defense Committee—a
body of the wealthiest and most intelligent citizens of all parties, who have
been conspicuously active in the good work of arming and forwarding soldiers to
flight the battles of the country against anarchy—have recently passed some
resolutions approving the timely and excellent words of the President in his
Message, and another resolution, "that we deprecate the discussion of projects
which tend to distract and alienate the Union sentiment of our people."

Does this mean projects of
unworthy peace, projects of infamous compromise, projects of patching which
would end he a more fatal rent? or what does it mean ? Can it mean the
discussion of projects which provide that the rebels shall pay the expenses of
their own rebellion ? Do they deprecate discussing whether rebels shall be
allowed the free use and enjoyment of their property, whether in real estate or
in the service of slaves ? Do they suppose that loyal citizens can all have the
same view of the true policy of the war, or that, differing, they ought not by
discussion to try to convince and agree ?

For instance, Mr. Pendleton
argues, ably but hopelessly, against the right of the President to suspend the
habeas corpus. Certainly such an argument tends to distract and alienate the
harmony of public sentiment. Shall he therefore forbear the discussion? Is it
not a thousand-fold better that he should make his argument, and have a vote of
108 to 26 recorded against his proposition?

Mr. Bingham proposes to release
the slaves of rebels, and Mr. Gurley to colonize them in Florida. Are those
suggestions to be deprecated ?

Mr. Sumner presents petitions for
universal emancipation, with compensation to loyal owners. Is that to be
reproved ?

Another gentleman repeats the
familiar truism that the war is for the supremacy of the Government, and that
when its object is attained the war ought to cease. Is that a distracting
suggestion?

The gentlemen of the Union
Defense Committee are intelligent and sagacious. They know that the four
millions of slaves in the rebel section can not be disregarded; they know that
something must be done, because, whether any policy is adopted for their
disposition or not, we have thousands of them to care for. Is it not worth while
to consider what shall be done with them ? Is it not equally worth while to
consider whether there may not be some policy devised in regard to slaves which
may shorten the war and save thousands of lives and millions of dollars to the
nation? Do they not know that the one project which would distract and alienate
loyal men irretrievably would be a proposition that all discussion should cease
upon the origin and intention of the rebellion, because without such discussion
you can not possibly cope with it successfully?

The object of the war is, we all
agree, to restore the supremacy of the Government by suppressing insurrection.
The question is, how can it best be done? And if the resolutions mean any thing,
they mean that that is the very question which must not be discussed. Of course
if it is only meant that the debate should be candid and generous, we shall all
cry Amen.

Site Copyright 2003-2014 Son of the
South.
For Questions or comments about this collection,